Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about increased HGV use on the road outside his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about increased HGV use on the road outside his home and the resulting impact to his family and other residents. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s plan to install directional signage promoting the road as an HGV route. Mr X wants an independent review and for the Council to pause plans regarding the signage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr X complained to the Council about increased HGV traffic on the road outside his home and the decision to install directional signage nearby promoting the road as an HGV route. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on residents affected. Mr X asked the Council to:

• Consider implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order to impose restrictions on the road.
• Pause and review the decision to implement directional signage promoting the HGV route past his home.
• Arrange a site visit from a Highways officer to assess the suitability of the road for HGV use.
• Consider other traffic calming measures to reduce the impact on residents.

7. The Council responded to Mr X and said:

• The road referred to was not subject to any HGV restrictions. It outlined the process which would be followed for a Traffic Regulation Order to be considered.
• A site visit had been carried out by a Highways engineer in relation to the directional HGV signage, which had been approved and was due for installation in the coming weeks. The sign was advisory only.
• Borough Council planning officers had approached the Council for consultation in conjunction with developments nearby and how improvements could be made to the road. Mr X was directed to the internet for further information about this.
• Whilst sympathetic to the issues that larger vehicles can cause, the Council was clear in its approach and duty that all highway-maintained roads should be publicly accessible.

Back to top

Assessment

8. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. In this case, the Council is the highway authority, and it must decide what traffic management measures to introduce. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council has offered a proportionate and reasonable response to Mr X’s complaint.
10. The Council has explained its position in relation to determining HGV routes in any location across its network and the difficult decisions it must make.
11. In this case the Council properly considered Mr X’s request but is not obliged to act on it. Without evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, we have no powers to intervene and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman